January 6th legal proceedings and investigations megathread

[emailking]

and then, appeal again arguing that he's the GOP nominee and thus it's unfair to hold him to account for his crimes.

That's not privileged so it can't delay anything. He can submit a motion to Chutkan who will deny it and then he can appeal it when the trial is over.

[emailking]

Possibly, but as soon as he responds they could rule at any point, if he gets it in tomorrow they can discuss in conference on Friday. He probably hasn't responded because there's not much point until Friday.

Edit: typo and he's responded now, says SCOTUS should not stay the case.

Asks if they must hear the case that they hear and decide the case in March. (Although I think Trump has not asked them to take the case yet, just to stay the trial while he appeals en banc.) Also argues strenuously and at length why they should not hear the case at all.

[emailking]

I am reasonably optimistic that Trump will will convicted of insurrection and bounced from the ballot, in which event there will be great rejoicing.

That seems like a huge change from where you were maybe a year ago when you thought all of this would be unproveable. But the charges don't directly relate to anything that took place on Jan 6 (though his actions on Jan 6 will be used as evidence). Is that what has changed your mind? He's not actually charged with insurrection.

[emailking]

I am reasonably optimistic that Trump will will convicted of insurrection and bounced from the ballot, in which event there will be great rejoicing.

That seems like a huge change from where you were maybe a year ago when you thought all of this would be unproveable. But the charges don't directly relate to anything that took place on Jan 6 (though his actions on Jan 6 will be used as evidence). Is that what has changed your mind? He's not actually charged with insurrection.

I don't recall that I changed my mind (I have always loathed Trump), and I think the issue of insurrection will be heard by the trial court and then go to the DC circuit.

Right. I just remember you citing all these articles from Andrew McCarthy making the point that impeachment would be justified but there wasn't evidence for criminal charges.

[emailking]

SCOTUS is scheduled to release cases they're taking tomorrow so we could find out soon.

I'm good with them taking the case as long as they don't grant the stay.

[emailking]

Georgia Gov. Kemp reveals he was interviewed by special counsel in 2020 election interference case

Georgia Republican Gov. Brian Kemp, who resisted intense pressure from former President Donald Trump to overturn the 2020 election results in his state, revealed Tuesday that he has been interviewed by special counsel Jack Smith’s office.

“I basically told them the same thing I told the special grand juries: that I follow the law and the Constitution and answered all their questions truthfully,” Kemp told CNN’s Kaitlan Collins on “The Source,” noting that the conversation took place “months ago” and “really didn’t last that long.”

A spokesman for the governor told CNN in July that Smith’s team had contacted Kemp but it was not previously known that he sat for an interview. The special counsel has since brought federal charges against the former president, alleging that Trump and six unindicted co-conspirators orchestrated a plot to overturn the election results on and leading up to January 6, 2021.

Kemp also provided testimony in 2022 to a special grand jury in Fulton County, Georgia, as part of a separate investigation by state prosecutors into Trump and his allies’ efforts to overturn the election in the Peach State.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/20/politics/kemp-trump-special-counsel-2020-cnntv/index.html

[emailking]

The Circuit could have done that (automatic stay expiration) but they didn't. They said if Trump appeals for a stay to SCOTUS by last Monday it's stayed until SCOTUS says otherwise.

It probably wouldn't have mattered though, Roberts likely would have put in administrative stay while they figure this out. Since it's stayed anyway, he doesn't need to.

[emailking]

#4 would be best since we'd get a national precedent.  If Trump wasn't running I bet they'd like to take the case up (on the normal schedule) just to establish that.

[emailking]

If Possibility #1 is what’s actually happening, how long can the dissenters delay for?

I believe indefinitely. The other justices could nudge them but that's it.

[emailking]

I don't know what indication there is they don't want to get involved, other than pundits hypothesizing (possibly correctly) that they don't want to deal with arguments about the President hypothetically murdering someone in their scared halls. I think if anything they'd ideally like the take the case (which could mean an opinion they agree with the Circuit, circumventing oral arguments, as postulated earlier) so there is a national precedent. Anyway, it's a big case so I think an administrative stay would be a given. They always do that, even when the Justice grating the stay agrees with the circuit decision.

[emailking]

SCOTUS is taking the case April 22, ugghh

[emailking]

If they take a month (big if) and assuming Chutkan doesn't give in to the argument that they should delay the trial until after the election (likely I think) and if the trial takes 2 months like she has estimated, we could actually be looking at a possible conviction in October! 🤯

[emailking]

Judge Luttig thinks (disappointingly) there must be dissent on the court and thusly they will announce a decision in the normal course so probably July. If that holds, Trump will likely be in the middle of the trial on election day.

[emailking]

If they take a month (big if) and assuming Chutkan doesn't give in to the argument that they should delay the trial until after the election (likely I think) and if the trial takes 2 months like she has estimated, we could actually be looking at a possible conviction in October! 🤯

October surprise of all October surprises

I can't imagine the trial would take 2 months though? That seems excessive

I wouldn't have thought so but that's Smith's estimate apparently.

Edit: I think jury selection is part of it, but that begins on the scheduled trial date.

[emailking]

Neal Katyal who's argued like 50 cases to SCOTUS thinks they must be worried about the immunity claim in MAL (11th circuit) and possibly getting conflicting rulings so they want to head it off now, also thinks they could decide it by May.

[emailking]

If they take a month (big if) and assuming Chutkan doesn't give in to the argument that they should delay the trial until after the election (likely I think) and if the trial takes 2 months like she has estimated, we could actually be looking at a possible conviction in October! 🤯

Judge Luttig thinks (disappointingly) there must be dissent on the court and thusly they will announce a decision in the normal course so probably July. If that holds, Trump will likely be in the middle of the trial on election day.

Chutkan promised to give Trump a day back of discovery & trial prep for every day that trial was stayed pending the appeal of his immunity motion, so if one assumes that SCOTUS doesn't rule on an Apr. case 'til the end of Jun., it's 198 days from Dec. 13th when Chutkan lost the case on immunity-appeal to the end of SCOTUS' term on Jun. 28th, putting trial in 2025.

I don't think so, I believe they get 7 more weeks once she gets the mandate back.

[emailking]

The 7 months to prepare had already been running for a while though, it's just paused, from the time he appealed her immunity ruling until the moment SCOTUS decides this.

[emailking]

Supreme Court to decide Trump immunity claim, further delaying election subversion trial

The Supreme Court agreed Wednesday to decide whether Donald Trump may claim immunity in special counsel Jack Smith’s election subversion case, adding another explosive appeal from the former president to its docket and further delaying his federal trial.

The court agreed to expedite the case and hear arguments the week of April 22.

The move puts the front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination on track for another high-stakes date with the high court, which earlier this month heard arguments in a separate case questioning whether Trump disqualified himself from running for a second term under the 14th Amendment’s “insurrection ban.”

The high court ordered that a lower court ruling against Trump remain on hold until it decides the issue.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/28/politics/trump-supreme-court-immunity/index.html

[emailking]

It is 88 days they still get to prepare for trial once it's decided, not 7 weeks like I said.

Some legal experts think Smith will ask Chutkan to renege on that under the circumstance. That would be up to her though.

[emailking]

And per Justice Department policy, the trial or a political candidate occur within two months before an election.

There is no such policy. That's for investigations. Maybe they'll decide to ask the judge to postpone but there is no existing policy for that.

[emailking]

Yeah that's why in the other thread I don't know what this means exactly in terms of what's going on behind the scenes, or whatever they'll rule fast or slow.

The orals should be clarifying, and exciting probably too.

[emailking]

https://twitter.com/AWeissmann_/status/1762990979592638775

[emailking]

Trump can't fire Smith. The AG can if s/he believes Smith is going far outside of the norms of what a reasonable prosecutor would do, and that decision has to be explained in writing to Congress.

[emailking]

Well earlier you said because of how they've acted that they weren't interested in this, then they took the case. I think it's unpredictable, at least right now. Maybe we'll get a better idea from orals.

[emailking]

Well earlier you said because of how they've acted that they weren't interested in this, then they took the case. I think it's unpredictable, at least right now. Maybe we'll get a better idea from orals.

Yeah I was definitely wrong about that.
I was shocked they took this case, and it’s really caused me to reassess a lot of what I had assumed about this court’s relationship to Trump.  
I guess maaaaaybe there were just 4 votes for cert and the majority still wants to move on this quickly, but then why schedule oral arguments two months out, especially considering how quickly they heard arguments in the ballot disqualification case?

Yeah I think, it's a bad sign, especially since (apparently) there weren't 5 votes to remove the stay and let the trial prep continue while they hear this, but maybe it's some kind of back room dealing, who knows.